PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the validity of a computerized 24-hour physical activity recall instrument (24PAR). METHODS: Participants (n=20) wore 2 pattern-recognition activity monitors (an IDEEA and a SenseWear Pro Armband) for a 24-hour period and then completed the 24PAR the following morning. Participants completed 2 trials, 1 while maintaining a prospective diary of their activities and 1 without a diary. The trials were counterbalanced and completed within a week from each other. Estimates of energy expenditure (EE) and minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) were compared with the criterion measures using 3-way (method by gender by trial) mixed-model ANOVA analyses. RESULTS: For EE, pairwise correlations were high (r>.88), and there were no differences in estimates across methods. Estimates of MVPA were more variable, but correlations were still in the moderate to high range (r>.57). Average activity levels were significantly higher on the logging trial, but there was no significant difference in the accuracy of self-report on days with and without logging. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study support the overall utility of the 24PAR for group-level estimates of daily EE and MVPA.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the validity of a computerized 24-hour physical activity recall instrument (24PAR). METHODS:Participants (n=20) wore 2 pattern-recognition activity monitors (an IDEEA and a SenseWear Pro Armband) for a 24-hour period and then completed the 24PAR the following morning. Participants completed 2 trials, 1 while maintaining a prospective diary of their activities and 1 without a diary. The trials were counterbalanced and completed within a week from each other. Estimates of energy expenditure (EE) and minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) were compared with the criterion measures using 3-way (method by gender by trial) mixed-model ANOVA analyses. RESULTS: For EE, pairwise correlations were high (r>.88), and there were no differences in estimates across methods. Estimates of MVPA were more variable, but correlations were still in the moderate to high range (r>.57). Average activity levels were significantly higher on the logging trial, but there was no significant difference in the accuracy of self-report on days with and without logging. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study support the overall utility of the 24PAR for group-level estimates of daily EE and MVPA.
Authors: Gregory J Welk; Youngwon Kim; Bryan Stanfill; David A Osthus; Miguel A Calabro; Sarah M Nusser; Alicia Carriquiry Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Somdat Mahabir; Walter C Willett; Christine M Friedenreich; Gabriel Y Lai; Carol J Boushey; Charles E Matthews; Rashmi Sinha; Graham A Colditz; Joseph A Rothwell; Jill Reedy; Alpa V Patel; Michael F Leitzmann; Gary E Fraser; Sharon Ross; Stephen D Hursting; Christian C Abnet; Lawrence H Kushi; Philip R Taylor; Ross L Prentice Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2017-12-18 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Charles E Matthews; Steven C Moore; Stephanie M George; Joshua Sampson; Heather R Bowles Journal: Exerc Sport Sci Rev Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 6.230
Authors: Barbara B Brown; Laura Wilson; Calvin P Tribby; Carol M Werner; Jean Wolf; Harvey J Miller; Ken R Smith Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2014-05-09 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: Charles E Matthews; Sarah Kozey Keadle; Joshua Sampson; Kate Lyden; Heather R Bowles; Stephen C Moore; Amanda Libertine; Patty S Freedson; Jay H Fowke Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 5.411